forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Hi All,

<ramblings>

This post isn't so much a question, but rather extensive ramblings on my part about the topic of gods and morality in Middle-earth. There have been a few posts about orcs (longevity), and choice (hidden LM dice rolls) that has led me to think about one of the books that I am reading. One aspect of hidden LM dice rolls could be the hidden hand of fate. The discussion on the longevity of orcs has prompted thought on their connection to their god.

To put my thoughts into context I will type out a couple of paragraphs from the book I am reading.

"Homer's gods are not wise and judicious like the later gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Rather, they are capricious, vain, vicious and deceitful. But however savage and immoral the gods may be, they are also all powerful ... It is in part a reflection as the Ancients saw it: messy, chaotic, largely unpredictable, barely controllable, and yet inescapable. Not only have human choices to be made against the backdrop of divinely ordered fate, but the gods often force humans to act against their wishes"

and

"This, for Homer, is the tragedy of being human: to desire freedom, and to be tortured by the sense of autonomy, and yet be imprisoned by forces beyond our control"

and this

"In the modern world, morality is inseparable from choice. Homers warriors cannot choose to be moral or not. Each is simply good or bad at performing the duties of his role. Human choice adds texture to the cloth already woven on the loom of fate, but cannot unpick the threads. There is in the Iliad and Odyssey only the faintest glimmer of what we would recognise as free will or choice."

When looking at mythology and religion in our own history, the gods played a significant role in shaping morality, customs and laws for every civilisation. This was all based on faith and an attempt to obtain a philosophical and physical understanding of the world around them. The variety in religions across civilisations fascinates me - Zoroastrianism, Greek Mythology, Celtic Mythology, Norse Mythology, Christianity, Roman gods, Egyptian gods. Religion in our world has painted a picture of good vs evil, society vs individual, predetermined fate vs freewill, morality and justice.

I have been thinking about ethics and morality in Middle-earth. The gods play a very important part in the shaping of Middle-earth. There is no denying their existence, they have a physical presence. Elves have been to Valinor and lived through the First Age. They have had conversations with the Valar and heard them speak. Their gods are living gods. In Homers world a mans social status and his moral worth are indistinguishable. If you are the King, you are fundamentally a good man and have agathos. I wonder if this belief is reflected in the way the first born are portrayed in contrast with the other free people in Middle-earth. They have the moral high ground because of their station, particularly those that are Eldar and have seen the light of the two trees. They seem to retain their status, at least in their own minds, despite their pride, departure from Valinor. the Kinslaying and consequential curse. I also wonder if the amalgamation of moral worth and station would carry through to the rest of society in Middle-earth, to the village of Bree, and even the Shire.

Sinister and ancient evil creatures remember Melkor, the fortresses of Angband and Utumno, as well as the empire of Agnmar. Wraiths and orcs now take orders directly from Sauron, a dark and powerful angel. Their gods are real, as is the endless suffering they will feel for disobedience or failure. This had me thinking about the orcs and morality, whether or not an orc would consider killing an elf an immoral or unethical act. They hardly have a choice, their god whom can directly communicate with them demands it. Additionally, the fate of Arda has already been written in the Great Music, of which Melkor wove his own themes. Does Sauron know the fate of the orcs? Does anyone? Do the orcs think that they are fated to rule? Or are they the underdog tragically and hopelessly fighting the fate that has already been written for them? Killing an elf may be honourable and morally justifiable according to an orc's station and his role to play in the things that will come to pass. This changes an orc in the game from a moronic evil creature to something more complex, which would perhaps provide for a more enjoyable experience. Particularly if the characters find missives and other official documents, or overhear conversations that reveal complexity in the moral and ethical societal norms according to orcs.

Unlike our world, in Middle-earth there is only one set of gods - the Valar and their nemesis Sauron. The gods of Middle-earth are real, and people’s beliefs across all national borders would reflect that. The difference in civilisations and cultural regions could perhaps be the result of favouring a particular Valar (or Sauron) or based on geographical circumstances and economic resources (agriculture, close to the sea, living in a mountain). Has anyone written up a little “house rules” document on the Valar? Would there be specific ways to worship each of them? Or the expected outcomes of this worship? It would be nice to tie morality, customs and beliefs (both good and evil) to religion and historical practices. I'm not going to be writing this, but I just thought the topic is interesting.

</ramblings>

Cheers,
Kurt

Kurt wrote:Unlike our world, in Middle-earth there is only one set of gods - the Valar and their nemesis Sauron. The gods of Middle-earth are real, and people’s beliefs across all national borders would reflect that. The difference in civilisations and cultural regions could perhaps be the result of favouring a particular Valar (or Sauron) or based on geographical circumstances and economic resources (agriculture, close to the sea, living in a mountain). Has anyone written up a little “house rules” document on the Valar? Would there be specific ways to worship each of them? Or the expected outcomes of this worship? It would be nice to tie morality, customs and beliefs (both good and evil) to religion and historical practices. I'm not going to be writing this, but I just thought the topic is interesting.

I've never seen anything. Maybe some of the MERP stuff has some thoughts around this that could be adapted. It's likely I guess that worship was in the home, with a few state ceremonies (i.e. Eruhantale in Numenor) and that seems to be that. The people of Middle Earth wear their gods lightly. It's interesting that for such a religious person, the Gods Tolkien created seem to have such little impact on the customs of the people. No ten commandments, no temples, no orders of monks or nuns, no saints days, no pilgrimages or Hajj, no civil wars as to whether you are allowed to create statues of the gods etc.

Your points about the Orcs is also interesting. In Tolkien they seem to be totally evil and that's that. They get what's coming to them basically. Turn it around though, and you could argue that their story is one of the biggest tragedies in Middle Earth lore. It has occurred to me that you could write a tragedy about the matriarch of the last Orc clan in the misty Mountains motivating your children to fight one last battle against the human hordes intent on destroying every last one of you.

Hi Finrod,

Thinking about this again today, the orcs are a twisted creation of Melkor and he likely did not feel the need to give them anything that will contravene his objectives. As part of their creation they could have been denied the ability to love, to question … or even the ability to make decisions on anything complicated. Created simply to breed, fight and serve their master. So there is justification for a lack of free will and a different moral compass - or no moral compass at all.

For the human races it seems that religion didn’t play a big role in creating the differences between cultures. It was more about where you grew up, the resources that were available to you, the hardships you faced and who your king was allied with. If you grew up as a woodsman on the edge of a forest you had a different upbringing, challenges and/or opportunities to someone growing up in Minas Tirith. I guess I am wondering about the differences between a commoner in Bree verses a commoner in Laketown verses a commoner in Edoras verses a commoner in Minas Tirith. All human, all at the same station, just living in different regions. I wonder about social norms and taboos, daily rituals and special events. Would they be different or would they be largely the same? Would an Easterling commoner or a Dunlending commoner have different morals, customs or daily rituals to the ones listed above?

… or then again perhaps I should not think about it so much ... especially when I have a paper due in three weeks

Cheers,
Kurt

hello everybody!

seems i'm the new guy. i've been reading this forum long enough to finally decide that i should "take shape" and join you for occasional discussions

and, btw, sorry for English.

the matter of religion in Middle-Earth is pretty complicated and unclear when you try to grasp it "from the inside" and stay "in-world" but i think it gets much clearer when you look at it from Tolkien's perspective.

i'm pretty sure that in one of his letters he was pretty open about why he hadn't put any organised religion or cult in Middle-Earth - reason is he didn't wanted to create any positive "competition" for Christianity. in other words, as a deeply religious man he was taking religion too serious to actually create anything beyond vague rituals or mentions. his works are full of religious meaning but he conciously put it on, let's call it, meta-level.

how you want to explain it "in-world"? well, that's another story. for myself i just don't. i try to stay close to what Tolkien had in mind about that matters but maybe that's because i'm also a roman catholic and i think i pretty much feel the way he felt

That's a good point, PolishWoodman. Here's a relevant snippet from one of my games, which has come up a few times again:

zedturtle, elsewhere wrote:

Rocmistro wrote: Zed, is there a place to 'worship' or meditate? I know the subject of religion in Middle-earth can be open to interpretation given Tolkien's rather deliberate avoidance of it. Are you practicing the virtuous pagan version? I think Amroth would most likely retreat to the closest thing which is a monastery/shrine/holy place, and probably meditate/sing/pray, even a hallowed garden would work. All this talk of the G.K. and Elbereth, has Amroth in a spiritual kind of mood, and I think he would be intent on preparing his spirit for the coming conflict and trying to glean meaning/wisdom by meditation. I don't see him roaming the streets of Dale like a detective or really meddling in the cultural affairs of men; it would get him too close to the ways of men, and that is a world he is not and cannot ever really be a part of. He would be thrilled to speak at length to anyone (Bergmal?) about Varda, and the Valar in general.

zedturtle wrote: It is a good question. We know from Tolkien's writing that men often mistake the Valar for gods. But I also think that they would be generous and understanding of men's confusion, accepting the veneration as perhaps misplaced but ultimately for the greater glory of Eru.

Let me think more on how to handle it, but in my mind there is no better place than an open field at night underneath the stars for Amroth's spiritual reflections.

- - - - -

Alrighty, somebody [it was me] brought up the Valar by name and then the perfectly reasonable question about religion in Middle Earth got asked. So now we have to answer it. So as to not be way off the page from other people, I'd like to conduct a little poll:

For our game, how do you want to handle the Valar and religion?

A. You've already gone too far. Retcon it... Gandalf told us some magic words that will drive away the evil spirit. Let everything else lie.

B. Be real subtle. The characters can talk about stuff "off-screen" but nothing more will be shown on-screen than the occasional cry of "Elbereth!".

C. The truth is (generally) known. Men know that there is one creator, and helper spirits. They don't worship the helper spirits or pay them much mind at all. There are no temples or organized religion.

D. The truth is (somewhat) corrupted. Men believe in a hierarchy of gods. There's someone at the top, but there's a whole bunch of them underneath. Small shrines to each "god" adorn a big city like Dale... you might make a small offering at The Lady of Flowers shrine before planting a field, or spend a few minutes asking for The Smith to guide your hands before working a piece on your anvil.

E. The truth is confused mightly. Men believe in gods. There are organized churches or other houses of worship. There is a small, but existent, group of dedicated priests. Few churches purport to have the whole truth, but all have some sort of story that explains why things are the way they are.

F. The truth is corrupted and darkened. All that is said in E. is true, and even more so. Plus, even in a city like Dale there is a Church of the True God, who teaches that there is but one master of all of Arda, and he will return from beyond the circles of the world triumphant in his glory.

I think that any of the above are valid approaches, but I do agree that folks need to be on the same page.

Welcome PolishWoodman, Hi Zed,

I like your post Zed, thanks for that. I think that there would be people within B, C and D depending on their education and their lot in life. I think those descriptions are great. The difference in B, C and D could also show up across regions and nationality.

I guess what I was trying to understand was also about the customs of various people.

A man that believes his fate is in the hands of the gods is more likely to enter battle as there is nothing that he can do to change his fate. If he dies, then it was his time as deemed by the gods. Someone that does not believe in fate is going to make a more rational decision about entering a battle or not. Both people would behave differently. If an Englishman ventured to Norway in 800AD he would notice a huge difference in customs, laws etc. The English and the Vikings had different religions and beliefs.

In Middle-Earth this is not the case, they all have the same gods/valar. So really I'm intetrested in what a player would notice between the people of Bree, Laketown or Minas Tirith apart from the difference in wealth. The same can be said if a player travels from Rohan to Dunland (putting the prejudice aside). Or perhaps most 'men' (as in human) are largely the same and the little difference in attitudes, behaviours, customs and laws are based on where people grew up, the resources that were available to them, the hardships they faced and who their king is.

from my point of view all depens on how much are we ready to alter the - somehow vague of course - "tolkien spirit".

maybe A is a little bit to strict approach, but i'm afraid that anything beyond D is going to emulate the feel which can be very at odds with "classic Middle-Earth" and be in many ways more "conanic" or "D&Dish" (and with all my love for Howard's work this is something completely different). it's tempting because it's more realistic, i totally agree. yet it's exactly that quiet, almost unmentioned, and only suggested here and there "natural religion uncousiosly waiting for first real Reveletion" that gives the books very special atmosphere. put an Aule dwarf--priest with big hammer and - however cool it may be - you drift in some other direction

Kurt wrote:I have been thinking about ethics and morality in Middle-earth. The gods play a very important part in the shaping of Middle-earth. There is no denying their existence, they have a physical presence. Elves have been to Valinor and lived through the First Age. They have had conversations with the Valar and heard them speak. Their gods are living gods. In Homers world a mans social status and his moral worth are indistinguishable. If you are the King, you are fundamentally a good man and have agathos. I wonder if this belief is reflected in the way the first born are portrayed in contrast with the other free people in Middle-earth. They have the moral high ground because of their station, particularly those that are Eldar and have seen the light of the two trees. They seem to retain their status, at least in their own minds, despite their pride, departure from Valinor. the Kinslaying and consequential curse. I also wonder if the amalgamation of moral worth and station would carry through to the rest of society in Middle-earth, to the village of Bree, and even the Shire.

I'd argue strongly that it doesn't. At all. There are numerous references to powerful men and other individuals of power and worth being 'wicked' or 'corrupt'. Just look at the Nazgul or Saruman. And nobody ever equates the fact that a particular person is King with them being worthy to be so (indeed, again, there are several places where they call such men things that indicate them as immoral).

Remember, this is in many ways a monotheistic world, or at least one where all the deities are drawn firmly into two camps, one Good and one Evil. Which makes social status and moral worth as indistinguishable a rather strange concept. Now, in the same way some Christians (people who believe in many versions of Prosperity Theology) equate social status and wealth as signs of God's favor, and thus signs of moral worth, you might well find some people who do the same in Middle Earth...but I wouldn't at all expect it to be the norm.

Heck, I'd argue it doesn't even apply in Ancient Greece (or most other places with pantheons of Gods) in the way you imply. King Lycaon was, well, a King, and yet he was wicked for breaking the sacred laws of hospitality (by feeding Zeus his son's flesh), and was punished for it. He's not remotely alone in that, either. Gods were arbitrary and not bound by moral rules in Greek mythology, but whenever mortals come into it, no matter their status, there are suddenly very real penalties for a variety of moral failings (hubris and the breaking of hospitality, most notably), which is strongly indicative of a society that did indeed view some things as inherent moral failings regardless of who was doing them. The moral rules the ancient Greeks abided by were different from those our society does, and certainly put a higher value on social status as a manifestation of moral goodness than most modern traditions (though the aforementioned believers in Prosperity Theology come to mind as a modern example of something similar), but it clearly wasn't the whole of what made a man righteous and worthy in their eyes.

Kurt wrote:Sinister and ancient evil creatures remember Melkor, the fortresses of Angband and Utumno, as well as the empire of Agnmar. Wraiths and orcs now take orders directly from Sauron, a dark and powerful angel. Their gods are real, as is the endless suffering they will feel for disobedience or failure. This had me thinking about the orcs and morality, whether or not an orc would consider killing an elf an immoral or unethical act. They hardly have a choice, their god whom can directly communicate with them demands it. Additionally, the fate of Arda has already been written in the Great Music, of which Melkor wove his own themes. Does Sauron know the fate of the orcs? Does anyone? Do the orcs think that they are fated to rule? Or are they the underdog tragically and hopelessly fighting the fate that has already been written for them? Killing an elf may be honourable and morally justifiable according to an orc's station and his role to play in the things that will come to pass. This changes an orc in the game from a moronic evil creature to something more complex, which would perhaps provide for a more enjoyable experience. Particularly if the characters find missives and other official documents, or overhear conversations that reveal complexity in the moral and ethical societal norms according to orcs.

I'm not sure if this is the right way to go about it. Orcs aren't a naturally occurring creature, they're corrupted. Something changed from something else. I'd expect, for symmetry, for their moral sense to be similarly corrupted rather than simply different. There's no evidence of them having any particular code of behavior not enforced through fear of those more powerful, and indeed quite a bit of them not having anything beyond that fear. I'd be inclined to say that the only Orc moral precept that seems appropriate is a sort of 'might makes right' philosophy where if you can take something (authority, wealth, land, whatever), you deserve to have it until someone else takes it.

Kurt wrote:Unlike our world, in Middle-earth there is only one set of gods - the Valar and their nemesis Sauron. The gods of Middle-earth are real, and people’s beliefs across all national borders would reflect that. The difference in civilisations and cultural regions could perhaps be the result of favouring a particular Valar (or Sauron) or based on geographical circumstances and economic resources (agriculture, close to the sea, living in a mountain). Has anyone written up a little “house rules” document on the Valar? Would there be specific ways to worship each of them? Or the expected outcomes of this worship? It would be nice to tie morality, customs and beliefs (both good and evil) to religion and historical practices. I'm not going to be writing this, but I just thought the topic is interesting.

I'd expect little to come from worshiping the Valar. Their worship (or that of Eru) is rather assumed, and thus any blessings they grant are as well. Heck, I'm not clear if they even would give more blessings to those who worship them...

And, for the record, on the main current thrust of this discussion, I'd be inclined to say that the world operates somewhere between zedturtle's C and D options, with B as a valid way to play the game, but not the way the world operates per se.

Kurt wrote:In Middle-Earth...they all have the same gods/valar. So really I'm intetrested in what a player would notice between the people of Bree, Laketown or Minas Tirith apart from the difference in wealth. The same can be said if a player travels from Rohan to Dunland (putting the prejudice aside). Or perhaps most 'men' (as in human) are largely the same and the little difference in attitudes, behaviours, customs and laws are based on where people grew up, the resources that were available to them, the hardships they faced and who their king is.

I don't know that this applies to the Men of the distant lands in the East and South of Middle-earth. Without knowledge of the Valar, they might have constructed their own distinctive belief-systems that are very different from what we have seen in the extant works of Tolkien. Some of that would have been subverted by Morgoth cults, but the old beliefs would still persist. We would probably see a lot of animism and shamanism with totems and worship of nature spirits. Dragon worship might have begun in the Far East with the belief that Were-worms were the founders of a ruling dynasty. Look at early belief systems in the real world and go nuts.

Hi all,

Thanks for all the posts. I think that I have been thinking about this all wrong. In terms of morality, customs and laws I shouldn't be thinking about a difference in culture between say England vs Norway in 800AD where there are two different religions, but rather England vs France in the same period where they shared the same religion but retained their own cultures. In fact Christianity was the religion of many nations, all retained their own distinctive cultures.

I guess that with a shared religion they would have the same sense of morality (what is just and right) which will impact local laws. This will be coloured with each regions history, the different hardships that they face or grievances between people in different regions. That shared morality would make it easier to unite nations against a common threat. Music, art, food, fashion, attitudes, daily rituals and other customs may be different but what is right and what is just would be quite common between the free people of Middle-earth.

But then the Easterlings, Dunlendings and Haradrim may have a different outlook on what is right and just.

Again, I like your options for the common outlook in religious practices Zed. Thanks for sharing. After I finish my paper I'll read up on the Valar again. I like what you said below.

Zedturtle wrote: ... you might make a small offering at The Lady of Flowers shrine before planting a field, or spend a few minutes asking for The Smith to guide your hands before working a piece on your anvil.

Cheers,
Kurt

P.S. I don't have the Laketown or Horselords of Rohan material yet so I don't know what details about various cultures are in those books. I am waiting for some of the other products to be relased before I get them all so I can save on shipping costs. I am very keen to get those books.